I must admit this is a new take on things.

[shirenomad]

In the 18th century, getting knocked over in the street too hard and getting even a scratch was sometimes fatal, because the cobblestone streets were coated with horse dung stains and discarded chamberpot contents. Should that injury get badly infected (as such materials in an open wound tend to do), you were pretty much doomed to, at best, have to amputate the injured area or suffer a slow and debilitating death. Even today, with modern medicine, we have sanitation laws for a reason -- antibiotics or no, infection of this type is extremely unpleasant.

Now picture a situation where someone regularly injures himself and exposes the open wound to fecal matter. Today, that person would be at constant risk of health problems. If it happened in the pre-antibiotic era, you've got someone who's got virtually no chance of living to a ripe old age, even in comparison to others from his time period.

Now picture it happening in Biblical times.

By now you've probably figured out where I'm going with this. I got this medical tidbit from a nurse, who can be considered a total liberal on almost every subject, but opposes any encouragement of the homosexual lifestyle because she's seen case after case of people with infections in, well, very personal areas. You've got two of the most sensitive regions of the body coming into direct contact, forcefully and in a way they weren't designed to do. There's going to be open wounds, and unless you had an enema right beforehand, there's going to be all the ingredients to infect it badly. Even without AIDS and other STDs and blood diseases entering the equation, it's literally not healthy.

But for the record, no, I am not saying homosexuals deserve what they get. I am saying that this is a real risk that many have no idea they're putting themselves through -- no more deserving of the results than a person deserves to get sick from drinking water a nearby industry has been secretely dumping waste into. But in both cases, the people in danger need to be told of the risk. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

Comments

[vivadawolf.livejournal.com]

...
well. Its. ...uh. important.
to be.
...l..ubed.

[cassaclyzm.livejournal.com]

Umm.... yeah. Seconding that one. X-D

[shirenomad]

Does that really help? I don't have the nurse's exact figures, granted, but given what she said, there's a LOT of infected people coming in. So either the lube isn't all that effective, or the majority don't know to use it.

[cassaclyzm.livejournal.com]

Ohhh yeah, it helps. There are different kinds that are better, of course.

And you have to remember, the nurse isn't going to see the people who are doing it right. *chuckles*

[vivadawolf.livejournal.com]

And lol, gay people arent the only ones who do it so...

[pantswarrior]

I had had the thought that this might actually be why homosexuality was disallowed in Old Testament law, just like eating pork or shellfish and other things that could be dangerous if everything wasn't just right... It just wasn't safe.

[surgo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I figured something like that. It's thrown in with the food and sanity laws. The way I figured it is they sure as hell had STDs back then, and they weren't sure what caused them, so they figured they were "gay diseases". Makes sense, because we've only become enlightened about AIDS and other STDs very recently, and that's what a shocking number of people thought.

[alaster.livejournal.com]

Some people still think that. -_-

[surgo.livejournal.com]

..."sanity laws"? What the hell was I thinking?

I meant "sanitary laws".

[shirenomad]

Yeah, and in the New Testament too... Paul mentions how homosexuals "received in themselves the due penalty" (emphasis added). He's probably talking about infection.

[surgo.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with that interpretation of Paul's words. It's a lot more sane than what a lot of fundamentalist nuts say, and it kind of fits. Paul also said that marriage was only for the lustful, and if people felt they absolutely had to have sex they should marry.

So yeah, I really find nothing in the Bible that's completely, as they say in the vernacular, "omg fagz are going to hell!!!1111".

[shirenomad]

I've always been of the opinion that God never forbids something that wasn't a bad idea to begin with. Sometimes He doesn't give the details of how it will hurt us (do you explain the effects of electron flow on the human nervous system, or just tell your kids not to stick their fingers in the electric sockets?) or elaborate on situations where it's actually okay (yes, not all mushrooms are poisonous/hallucinogenic, but naturalists will tell you not to eat any found in the wild just to be safe). But the risk is always there.

So in this case, yeah, it probably was forbidden and for a very good reason. Whether it's no longer forbidden because it's safer (though not completely safe), for the same reasons pork's back on the menu... that's up for debate.

[chibiakki.livejournal.com]

Frankly, God didn't write the bible. Man did. And all the different version are because of all the different people putting their own personal spins on things. And what man doesn't understand, they either chalk up as an act of god, or forbid it in polite society. God may be sitting up there in Heaven, looking down on everyone, and asking, "Why do people think homosexuality is wrong? I never said that. I spoke through people to promote love, not hate. Why do I let people write for themselves and then claim that I said it?"

And hell, the prostate is in there, it can be stimulated through anal sex, and it can feel good. So if God created man that way, and placed that gland there, who's to say he wasn't going, "hint hint" the entire time?

[shirenomad]

What's hate got to do with anything? Does a parent who tells their kid not to cross the street without an adult do it out of hate, intending to keep them from seeing their friends, or out of love, protecting them from being run over? We just established that homosexual sex was probably frequently fatal throughout the Biblical era, so wouldn't it have been an act of love on God's part to tell people not to do it?

[chibiakki.livejournal.com]

I was referring to modern times, though. Yes, it may have been potentially fatal in biblical times, but so were a great many things that probably weren't forbidden, but simply that people didn't know about. If falling on the street and having your arm potentially drenched in urine and feces was such a hazard, then why didn't God impose better sanitation laws?

Okay, now even I know that's stretching it a little. My point was simply that the bible was written by man, claiming the words inside were God's. Sadly. I don't doubt that a great many things in the bible hold true for good life lessons and whatnot, though. But having not been there when it was written, I can't say for sure what was written by man and what was given by God.

And as I said in my comment below, there's a big difference from having your cut arm soaked with unmentionable materials, and having a few stray pieces of fecal matter where there may be a tear. Probably was a tear if lubrication wasn't involved, but still.

I agree with the fact that it may have been much more dangerous in old times, and that may have been why it was forbidden. But looking at it in a modern light, when we know more and can protect more against infection, that doesn't explain why people are still so anal about the issue, if you'll pardon the pun.

Other than that people as a whole are jerks, anyway.

[shirenomad]

If falling on the street and having your arm potentially drenched in urine and feces was such a hazard, then why didn't God impose better sanitation laws?

Actually, if you read Leviticus, there were an astounding number of laws related to sanitation. Dietary requirements, where you could and couldn't go to the bathroom, how to quarantine those with illnesses, etc. etc.

And fair enough. Quite possibly, now that we have safer procedures, it isn't so much of an issue any more in God's eyes (though some people would argue there are other problems).

[surgo.livejournal.com]

As Viva said...

[furymcflurry.livejournal.com]

Ha. Did you intend to pick such relevant music?

[shirenomad]

Eh? It's from Lineage II. What about it?

[furymcflurry.livejournal.com]

Well, you're talking about the fecal, and your music is Bill Brown - After the Storm.

Nevermind. I'm just being retarded as usual!

[chibiakki.livejournal.com]

That's what condoms are for, my friend.

And as for the person on the receiving end getting split open and risking infection . . . well, frankly, that can happen every time you take a big enough dump. Hell, I have a tear in there that keeps getting broken open (no frigging clue how it happened, but meh, it's there, and I have to deal with it), and so far, I've not been infected by my own poo. Not to say it'll never happen, though. My point is simply that a) there are ways around such things, and b) it can happen to anyone.

And if I remember correctly, there's comparitively little fecal matter in there until the moment of defecation, so it's not as bad as it could be. Some, yeah, but not a huge amount. Certainly nothing comparable to shit-covered streets.

And I do agree with Cass saying that the nurse isn't going to see the people who are doing it the right way.